9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (2) TMI 1014X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mpex as non-genuine and Rs..10,030/- towards unexplained commission expenditure on bogus purchases for the A.Y. 2011-12 on the basis of the information received from DGIT (Inv.,), Mumbai that assessee has received accommodation entries from M/s. Vitraj Traders Impex without making any purchases but made purchases only in gray market. The Assessing Officer treated such purchases from M/s. Vitraj Traders Impex as non-genuine as the assessee could not produce the party and also could not establish the movement of goods. However, the Assessing Officer estimated the profit element from non-genuine purchases at 12.5% and brought to tax an amount of Rs..1,25,374/- out of purchases of Rs..10,02,988/-. The assessee accepted the estimation of profit element from non-genuine purchases made by the Assessing Officer and no further appeal has been preferred. Subsequently, Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings and levied penalty of Rs..47,000/- u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act stating that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of its income and concealed its income within the meaning of section 271(1)(c) r.w. Explanation 1 of the Act. On appeal the Ld.CIT(A) deleted the penalty si ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 15 dated 16.01.2017 the Coordinate Bench held as under: - "9. We have heard the rival parties and carefully considered material placed before us including the order of the authorities below. We find from the assessment order that the AO has made an addition of Rs. 45,76,587/- being 5% on total purchases on estimated basis in order to bring the bogus purchases to tax on the basis of information received from the third party i.e. State Sales Tax Department and DDIT(Inv) V(I), Mumbai which was not challenged by the assessee before the FAA and attained finality. Thereafter the AO levied penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on the ground that the assessee did not challenge the assessment order and accepted additions so made thereby accepting the concealment of income. We find from the record that the additions as made by the AO was a pure estimate and nothing concrete as to bogus purchases were brought on records by the AO by making any further enquiries or investigation. In our view the penalty cannot be imposed where the additions are made on estimate basis. The Tribunal has considered an identical issue in the case of Deepak Popatlal Gala, in ITA No. 5920/M/13 and vide order dated 27 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pon the decision rendered by the Tribunal in the case of ITO Vs. Premanand (2008)(25 SOT 11)(Jodh), wherein it has been held that where the AO has made addition merely on the basis of observations made by the Sales tax dept and has not conducted any independent enquiries for making the addition especially in a case where the assessee has discharged its primary onus of showing books of account, payment by way of account payee cheque and producing vouchers for sale of goods, such an addition could not be sustained. The Ld CIT(A) has also appreciated the contentions of the assessee that he was not provided with an opportunity to cross examine the sellers, which is required to be given as per the decision of Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of Ponkunnam Traders (83 ITR 508 & 102 ITR 366). Accordingly, the Ld CIT(A) has deleted the impugned addition. On a careful perusal of the decision rendered by Ld CIT(A) would show that the first appellate authority has analysed the issue in all angles and applied the ratio laid down by the High Courts and Tribunals in deciding this issue. Hence, we do not find any reason to interfere with his order on this issue. " We also find that in the f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cept the reply and found that since the assessee had not filed any fresh evidence in penalty proceedings to prove that there was no attempt on his part to conceal his income, he, by his order dated March 10, 1992, imposed a penalty of Rs. 50,000. Feeling aggrieved by this order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Patiala, who allowed the same holding that there was indeed no positive evidence whatever to show that the appellant's income during the year in question was, in fact, more than the income returned by him and that estimated additions in the returned income do not attract penalty under Section 271(1)(c)of the Act. The Revenue went up in appeal before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal which was allowed by order dated May 30, 2001. It is against this order that the present appeal has been filed which raises the aforesaid question of law. 4. In order to attract Clause (c) of Section 271(1) of the Act, it is necessary that there must be concealment by the assessee of the particulars of his income or if he furnishes inaccurate particulars of such income. What is to be seen is whether the assessee in the present case had concealed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
